High income countries have been criticised for hoarding covid-19 vaccines: they have been accused of ‘vaccine nationalism’. But what exactly is vaccine nationalism? Is it really wrong to prioritise one’s own citizens, and, if so, why? How can we do better when the next pandemic strikes? In this Thinking Out Loud interview, philosopher Dr Jonathan… Read More »Video Interview: Is Vaccine Nationalism Justified?
Many people accept that, to protect public health, it is sometimes acceptable, or morally obligatory, to restrict people’s liberties. But there’s a lot of disagreement about how far these restrictions should go, and whom they should apply to: everyone, or certain groups of people only? In this Thinking out Loud interview, Professor Julian Savulescu (Uehiro… Read More »Video Interview: Julian Savulescu on the Selective Restriction of Liberty During the Pandemic
Many who had no doubts whatsoever about having themselves vaccinated against COVID, are much more hesitant when it comes to vaccinating their young children. Is such hesitancy justified? In this Thinking Out Loud interview, Katrien Devolder talks to Dominic Wilkinson, Consultant Neonatologist and Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Oxford about the ethical… Read More »Video Interview: Should We Vaccinate Young Children Against COVID?
In this Thinking Out Loud interview with Dr Katrien Devolder (Philosophy, Oxford), Professor Aaron S. Gross (Theology and Religious Studies, San Diego) explains why factory farms are breeding grounds for pandemics, and what we, as individuals, can do to reduce the risk of new pandemics arising (even if we don’t feel ready just as yet… Read More »Video Series: Factory Farms are Breeding Grounds for Pandemics
In this new Thinking Out Loud interview, Katrien Devolder talks to philosopher Dr Josh Milburn (Sheffield) about whether we should (and can) feed our cat or dog a vegan diet. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid products from factory farms (e.g. to prevent future pandemics, to reduce animal suffering, to reduce antimicrobial resistance,… Read More »Video Series: Should We Feed Our Pets a Vegan Diet?
Philosopher Udo Schüklenk argues that it is morally permissible for doctors, nurses and other care workers to stop working if they lack PPE (personal protective equipment). To listen to the interview, follow this link to the podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/is-it-morally-permissible-for-healthcare-workers-to/id1509190881?i=1000472576406
Co-authored with Daniel D’Hotman de Villiers
In the first St. Cross seminar of the term, Dr. Neil Armstrong talked about ethical challenges raised by mounting bureaucratic processes in the institutional provision of mental healthcare. Drawing on vignettes from his ethnographic fieldwork, Dr. Armstrong argued that the bureaucratization of mental healthcare has led to a situation in which the provision of care involves conflicts of the sort that make it irretrievably morally confusing. The podcast will follow shortly here.
Read More »Dr Neil Armstrong – Why is Mental Healthcare so Ethically Confusing
In Elizabeth Anderson’s final Uehiro lecture, she tackles what she takes to be the hardest problem facing our current political discourse – How can we overcome obstacles to communicating moral concerns in order to orient policy to important values (such as public health and justice)? This is a particularly difficult and intractable problem because it concerns our moral values; in overcoming this obstacle, there is thus a considerable degree of scope for disagreement, and judgments of the moral character of others based on their moral opinions. Over the course of the lecture, Anderson refines the diagnosis of this problem, and once again expresses optimism about overcoming the obstacles she highlights. This time she outlines how we might disarm the fear, resentment, pride, and contempt that is currently derailing our political discourse, and the virtues that we must develop to do so. You can find a recording of the lecture here.
Prof. Elizabeth Anderson’s second Uehiro lecture focuses on how we can overcome obstacles to fact-based political discourse. In particular, the lecture concerns how we might prevent identity-expressive discourse (a term introduced in the first lecture; see summary of lecture 1 below) from displacing the discussion of facts and evidence in public discourse, and how we might overcome the shameless lying and disinformation campaigns of populist populations. Over the course of the lecture, Anderson illustrates her analysis with illuminating cases studies, and finishes by providing her own solutions to the problem at hand, drawing on Cultural Cognition theory, John Dewey’s cultural conception of democracy, and emerging data from deliberative polling studies. You can find a recording of the lecture here
It is something of an understatement to suggest that we are living through turbulent times. Society today is characterised not just by deep divisions about how to address key social challenges of our time, but also on the emphasis that should be placed on evidence-based discussion of these issues, and the moral values that should guide national policies.
In this context, Elizabeth Anderson’s Uehiro lecture series, entitled ““Can We Talk – Communicating Moral Concern In An Era of Polarized Politics” could not be more timely. In the first of this three lecture series, Anderson offers a diagnosis of the problems that currently bedevil political discourse across the world. This first lecture sets the stage for the following two lectures in which she shall offer her own proposed solutions to the problems that she so vividly describes and analyses in this fascinating initial lecture. The remainder of this post shall briefly summarise the key points of the lecture – You can find a recording of the lecture here
